travel lens for a6000
Discussion
How much coin does sir have?
Great read up here, of E mount lenses:
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/
Confusingly, sony have two types of E mount lenses
FE = for full frame (will still work on APS-C size sensors, like in your a6000)
E = Just for APS-C sensors (will vignette on full frame cameras like the A7 range)
For travel, i wouldn't bother getting FE (full frame) E mount glass - as it'll be heavier. (unless you plan to get an A7 camera in the future). Also, the FE mid range zooms, although f2.8 which is great, tend to start at 24mm, which i dont find wide enough for everyday use. Also, regular E mount lenses, designed for APC sized sensors, will weigh a little less, and in theory be a bit cheaper.
Sony do an e mount 16-70mm f4 that'll give you a bit more reach than your current lens. Theres a great value E PZ 18-105mm thats about £500 that'll give you a great zoom range. But its heavy as they've included an awful zoom servo inside. They do some megazooms, but personally unless its wildlife or motorsport, do you ever need that much reach?
What kind of stuff do you take photos of when you travel?
When i travel now, I actually tend to ditch a mid-range zoom lens and just stick a 20mm pancake on. - cameras lighter, its wide enough on APS-C for interesting landscapes, yet close enough that i can get a wider portrait, and close focuses enough that i can take some interesting, almost macro shots (im a fan of close, but wide). I find myself always with camera ready in pocket as its so light, and i tend to find i go looking for shots instead of just standing on one spot zooming into everything. I find i get better photos, i go up and talk to people, interact, and end up with far more interesting shots, than if id just sat a mile away sniping people on a 200mm lens.
Great read up here, of E mount lenses:
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/
Confusingly, sony have two types of E mount lenses
FE = for full frame (will still work on APS-C size sensors, like in your a6000)
E = Just for APS-C sensors (will vignette on full frame cameras like the A7 range)
For travel, i wouldn't bother getting FE (full frame) E mount glass - as it'll be heavier. (unless you plan to get an A7 camera in the future). Also, the FE mid range zooms, although f2.8 which is great, tend to start at 24mm, which i dont find wide enough for everyday use. Also, regular E mount lenses, designed for APC sized sensors, will weigh a little less, and in theory be a bit cheaper.
Sony do an e mount 16-70mm f4 that'll give you a bit more reach than your current lens. Theres a great value E PZ 18-105mm thats about £500 that'll give you a great zoom range. But its heavy as they've included an awful zoom servo inside. They do some megazooms, but personally unless its wildlife or motorsport, do you ever need that much reach?
What kind of stuff do you take photos of when you travel?
When i travel now, I actually tend to ditch a mid-range zoom lens and just stick a 20mm pancake on. - cameras lighter, its wide enough on APS-C for interesting landscapes, yet close enough that i can get a wider portrait, and close focuses enough that i can take some interesting, almost macro shots (im a fan of close, but wide). I find myself always with camera ready in pocket as its so light, and i tend to find i go looking for shots instead of just standing on one spot zooming into everything. I find i get better photos, i go up and talk to people, interact, and end up with far more interesting shots, than if id just sat a mile away sniping people on a 200mm lens.
Wouldn't recommend the 18-105 for photos, makes more sense as a video lens. Just for a laugh you can see how bad the distortion is at 50mm
Before is RAW from camera and second is corrected using the profile in LR.
I'd say stick with the kit lens and add a prime, maybe sort through your favourite photos to see what the most common focal length is and get a prime lens that's close. The new Sigma 30mm f1.4 looks good.
Before is RAW from camera and second is corrected using the profile in LR.
I'd say stick with the kit lens and add a prime, maybe sort through your favourite photos to see what the most common focal length is and get a prime lens that's close. The new Sigma 30mm f1.4 looks good.
Edited by Janesy B on Thursday 5th May 23:11
This is what really put me off going for an A6000. Was all ready to buy one as on paper, its a great body, but the lens line up is lacking essential options.
Yes, you can buy the 18-200, 18-105 or the 16-70 but when you have to spend £500 each for their mediocre performance, it doesn't seem like such an appealing idea. Especially not when the equivalent 18-200 or 18-105 can be bought for a number of other systems for under £150.
After selling my Nikon kit, I ended up with a Lumix G7. I've owned M43 cameras before and I'm always attracted by the wide range of affordable lenses. Something the likes of Sony and Fuji just don't have.
Yes, you can buy the 18-200, 18-105 or the 16-70 but when you have to spend £500 each for their mediocre performance, it doesn't seem like such an appealing idea. Especially not when the equivalent 18-200 or 18-105 can be bought for a number of other systems for under £150.
After selling my Nikon kit, I ended up with a Lumix G7. I've owned M43 cameras before and I'm always attracted by the wide range of affordable lenses. Something the likes of Sony and Fuji just don't have.
Janesy B said:
Wouldn't recommend the 18-105 for photos, makes more sense as a video lens. Just for a laugh you can see how bad the distortion is at 50mm
Before is RAW from camera and second is corrected using the profile in LR.
I'd say stick with the kit lens and add a prime, maybe sort through your favourite photos to see what the most common focal length is and get a prime lens that's close. The new Sigma 30mm f1.4 looks good.
wow, thats some severe distortion! Didn't realise that lens was that bad. I know no zoom is perfect, and i'd expect distortion at the extremes, but to see that much right in the middle at 50!Before is RAW from camera and second is corrected using the profile in LR.
I'd say stick with the kit lens and add a prime, maybe sort through your favourite photos to see what the most common focal length is and get a prime lens that's close. The new Sigma 30mm f1.4 looks good.
Edited by Janesy B on Thursday 5th May 23:11
ive been thinking a bit more and found my self just looking at the primes instead
the sony 28 f2 50 1.8 oss and the 35 1.8 oss
the sigma 30 1.8 and the 30 1.4
i have a feeling i may be taking quite a few low light photos in new orleans and nashvile so i really need it to be fast so any would do BUT i have a tendency to shake like a s
tting dog so oss could be very usefull as in reading people have been getting usebale shots down to 1/5 with the 35 1.8 oss to me that seems like witchcraft
but the 30 1.4 seems like an amazing bit of glass
any further help you could give would be great!
the sony 28 f2 50 1.8 oss and the 35 1.8 oss
the sigma 30 1.8 and the 30 1.4
i have a feeling i may be taking quite a few low light photos in new orleans and nashvile so i really need it to be fast so any would do BUT i have a tendency to shake like a s
tting dog so oss could be very usefull as in reading people have been getting usebale shots down to 1/5 with the 35 1.8 oss to me that seems like witchcraft but the 30 1.4 seems like an amazing bit of glass
any further help you could give would be great!
Fordo said:
wow, thats some severe distortion! Didn't realise that lens was that bad. I know no zoom is perfect, and i'd expect distortion at the extremes, but to see that much right in the middle at 50!
I'm struggling to see it.They both look fine to me, if anything the RAW looks better.
sgrimshaw said:
I can see that, but I'm struggling to see the distortion in the middle as observed by Fordo
In the raw, it looks like the front of the car is 'pushed in'. Its looks to my eye like a type of pincushion distortion. Bit more noticeable here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3598617But thats at the long end. I'd expect a zoom to barrel at the wide end a bit, and pincushion a little at the other - but it does seem extreme with this lens. Does seem the way of things now, with software either in camera or in post, correcting the flaws of the lens digitally.
Edited by Fordo on Wednesday 18th May 12:09
I use the kit lens for day to day stuff, mainly for its small size, the 35mm 1.8 for portraits and low light, and the 55-210 for things like zoos and motorsport.
I tend to just pick one and accept its limitations for the day rather than taking them all and messing around changing them all the time.
I tend to just pick one and accept its limitations for the day rather than taking them all and messing around changing them all the time.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff